As we approach the end of 2017, we look back on a year that saw the largest cholera outbreak in recent history, continued crisis around migration, protracted conflict and famine. This year, Intercross celebrated its 6th birthday, we launched Intercross the Podcast and shared nearly 200 pieces of content. We have lots of new and exciting things planned for 2018, but in the meantime, let's take a look back on our most popular blog content from 2017.

In the final installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Jann K. Kleffner discusses the wounded, sick and the proportionality assessment. Mr. Kleffner is Professor of International Law and Head of the Centre for International and Operational Law at the Swedish Defence University. His research is on public international law, with a special focus on the international law of military operations, including the law of armed conflict and peace operations, jus ad bellum, international criminal law, and human rights law.

The fourth post in our joint blog series arising from the 2017 Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict, Wounded and Sick, Proportionality, and Armaments by Geoffrey Corn (South Texas College of Law) is now available over on Lawfare.

The third post in our joint blog series arising from the 2017 Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict, ‘ICRC Commentary of Common Article 3: Some questions relating to organized armed groups and the applicability of IHL’’- by Annyssa Bellal (Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law & Human Rights) is now available over on EJIL:Talk!

The second post in our joint blog series arising from the 2017 Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict, ‘Common Article 3 and Linkages Between Non-State Armed Groups’- by Ashley Deeks (University of Virginia School of Law) is now available over on Lawfare. Read a teaser here.

In the first installment of episode 2 in this multi-blog series on the updated Commentaries, Heather Brandon discusses the protective status of medical facilities and personnel and the appropriate responses to attacks as guided by GCI.

Today, we are launching the second episode of the multi-blog series examining the Geneva Convention Updated Commentaries, focusing on GCI and the arming of military medical personnel, units and transports. To what extent can military medical personnel, units and transports be armed? When permitted, can they be armed with weaponry heavier than the so-called “light” individual weapons? When would this constitute an “act harmful to the enemy”? Which implications does arming them have in terms of the entitlement to display the distinctive emblem of the Conventions? Heather Brandon kicks off the conversation.

In our fourth post on Why Outer Space matters, Major Susan Trepczynski gives a brief introduction of International Space Law. She explains the international legal regime around space activities, which include four multilateral treaties: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue and Return Agreement, the 1972 Liability Convention, and the 1975 Registration Convention. Despite evolving technologies and the transformation of space activities from an exclusively governmental pursuit to one with increasing commercial equities, the original text of each treaty remains operative today.

In our third post on Why Outer Space Matters, Brian Weeden discusses the natural and human-generated threats to satellites. Outer space has a tendency to be viewed as a peaceful, serene domain, where satellites can orbit around the Earth in relative solitude to perform what ever missions they were designed for. But in reality, outer space is a harsh domain, and full of both human-generated and natural threats that pose considerable challenges to space missions. As humanity’s use of, and reliance on, satellites and space capabilities grows, the threats could jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the space environment, and our ability to continue to use space for benefits on Earth.

In our second post on Why Outer Space Matters, Krystal Wilson of the Secure World Foundation writes about the humanitarian applications of space. It’s easy to think of space as far away, as the domain of wealthy countries, as science fiction, as cool technology, as something far off in the future. In reality, it’s essential for being able to respond to humanitarian crises right now. Space-based capabilities, particularly weather, communication, navigation, and Earth observation satellites, contribute to every phase of humanitarian work from damage assessment to early recovery to community building to disaster and conflict risk reduction. Satellites are an integral part of forming a comprehensive understanding of a location in crisis, supporting logistics, ongoing decision-making, and even public outreach.

The ICRC recently participated in the Inaugural Plenary of the MILAMOS Project, which aims to develop a widely-accepted manual clarifying the fundamental rules applicable to the military use of outer space, in times of peace, as well as in periods of tension and in armed conflict. To coincide with the launch, Intercross introduces our newest series, Why Outer Space Matters.

In the final installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Janina Dill discusses assessing proportionality. Ms. Dill is a Janina Dill is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics and a Research Associate of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict at the University of Oxford. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the ICRC or the other blogs taking part in this series.

In the fifth installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne discusses the procedural guarantees in detention. Mr. Hill-Cawthorne is a Lecturer in Law and Programme Director of the LLMs in International Law and Human Rights at the University of Reading. He has a DPhil in International Law from the University of Oxford and his research interests lie in international humanitarian law, human rights law, international criminal law, and relationship of these different areas to general international law.

In the fifth installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Rachel VanLandingham discusses the procedural guarantees in detention. Professor VanLandingham, Lt. Col., USAF, (ret.), is an associate professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, California, and spent four years advising U.S. Central Command officials on detention policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the ICRC or the other blogs taking part in this series.

In the fourth installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Ian Parks discusses the obligation to investigate violations of IHL. Commander Ian Park has served in 7 ships and deployed worldwide in support of the Royal Navy and has deployed as a legal adviser to the ISAF Joint Command, Kabul, Afghanistan in 2011-12, and on numerous occasions to the Middle East. He regularly lectures at universities and military academies. Ian is a graduate of Oxford University, and is, or has been, a Hudson Fellow at Oxford University, a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, and a First Sea Lord's Fellow.. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the ICRC or the other blogs taking part in this series.

In the third installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Chris Jenks discusses Coalition Operations and the Obligation to Investigate IHL Violations. Mr. Jenks is an assistant professor of law and directs the criminal justice clinic at the SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas, Texas. Chris’ research interests focus on accountability norms during armed conflict.

In the second installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Monica Hakimi discusses Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict. Ms. Hakimi is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. She teaches and writes on public international law and U.S. foreign relations law, with a particular focus on the informal ways in which international law adapts to contemporary challenges. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the ICRC or the other blogs taking part in this series.

In the first installment of our Transatlantic Dialogue Series, Nehal Bhuta of the European University Institute discusses Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict. Mr. Bhuta is Professor of Public International Law. He is also co-director of the Global Governance Program’s Global Governance by Indicators project. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the ICRC or the other blogs taking part in this series.

Throughout September, in coordination with our friends over at Lawfare and EJIL:Talk!, we’re following up on this summer’s 4th annual Transatlantic Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict (which took place in Oxford in July) with a joint blog series exploring a range of interesting issues relating to the conduct of hostilities – such as targeting “war sustaining” activities and the principle of proportionality, as well as issues related to detention in armed conflict, such as fair trial guarantees and administrative procedures.

INTERCROSS

Intercross is the blog of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Washington D.C.. It is a place for timely news, commentary on armed conflict and violence, humanitarian action, and the rules of war.

Intercross was started in 2011 as a blog and morphed into a podcast-only site in December 2018. (We are no longer actively adding blog content to the site, however you can still peruse our archive of rich content from the beginning here.)

RSS FEED

**Intercross, the Podcast disclaimer: Just because something or someone is featured here, doesn't mean we endorse or agree with the institutions they represent. Views expressed on the platforms we may highlight don't necessarily represent those of the ICRC.**